911 - Does the huge quantity of iron-rich spheres in the dust point to nuclear or DEW hypotheses?

Calculations can help define the magnitude of various theories. I am
referencing a calculation that Niels Harrit emailed to me and various
others on 7/26/2011. He calculated the amount of thermitic material that
would have been necessary to account for the quantity of iron-rich
spheres in the WTC dust, assuming of course that the iron reaction
product of the thermite reaction was the source of the spheres. The
range of thermitic material that he calculated was from 29,000 metric
tons to 143,000 metric tons per Twin Tower, depending on the iron oxide
concentration assumed for the thermitic material. These numbers are
unrealistically high in terms of the quantity of thermitic material that
could have or would have been loaded into a Twin Tower by the
perpetrators before its destruction, in my view, but that’s not what I
want to get into right here. I want to use this huge quantity of
iron-rich spheres to illustrate an alternate explanation for their
presence.
An intermediate value from Harrit’s calculation referenced above was
that conservatively 11,660 metric tons of iron-rich spheres were present
in the dust generated from the destruction of one Twin Tower. If we
assume that the iron-rich spheres were mostly iron, with the iron source
possibly being the structural steel rather than thermitic material, the
energy required to convert this much iron to the molten state can be
calculated. (It is assumed that the iron-rich spheres required a prior
molten state for their formation.) Furthermore, if we express the energy
in terms of the quantity of TNT equivalent based on its heat of
explosion, these units can give us something to relate to in terms
commonly associated with specifying the magnitude of nuclear explosions,
kilotons. So if the calculation is done for just the energy necessary
to melt the iron, on the order of 1 kiloton of TNT is the energy
equivalent required. If we also include the energy necessary to heat the
iron from room temperature to its melting point, then on the order of 4
kilotons TNT equivalent would be required. Of course there would be
more kilotons than this to account for all of the other destruction in
addition to just producing the iron-rich spheres, so we are definitely
talking about something in the multiple kiloton range. This helps to
illustrate the magnitude of what we may be dealing with in the
destruction of the Twin Towers and points towards the possibility of
nuclear devices or even possibly some more esoteric directed free energy
technology such as what Dr. Judy Wood hypothesizes, in her book, “Where
Did the Towers Go?” All WTC destruction hypotheses are speculative, and
these are no exception, but these do seem to fit the magnitude of the
iron-rich sphere data better than the nanothermite hypothesis. Dr. Judy
Wood’s hypothesis is also a nuclear hypothesis of sorts, in that she
refers to Low Energy Nuclear Reactions as a possible part of the
esoteric technology used.
========

Editor’s note: This post originally appeared on T Mark
Hightower’s blog. Mark has left public 9/11 research and I was asked to
re-post some of his old articles. This is the first of a series of posts
from Mark’s old blog.
T Mark Hightower
8/8/2011

ABSTRACT
Although the Harrit et al. paper claims great uniformity of results
among all samples based on all the tests apart from the Differential
Scanning Calorimeter (DSC) tests, this is in significant contrast to the
tremendous lack of uniformity reflected in the DSC results.
Also, although the paper contains a rather doubtful statement
regarding its findings in one part of the paper, it concludes with a
strikingly confident conclusion in the final statement of the paper.

THE UNCERTAINTY OF THE DIFFERENTIAL SCANNING CALORIMETER (DSC) RESULTS
There are some weaknesses in the Differential Scanning Calorimeter
(DSC) data that is presented in the paper (Harrit et al.) for the 4 dust
samples.
There were 4 dust samples tested. Page 9 of the paper identifies them as
1 MacKinlay
2 Delassio/Breidenbach
3 Intermount
4 White
The DSC data is presented in the text of page 19, section 3, which
refers to graphical results of Fig. 19 on page 20. One of the DSC traces
is compared to a trace of published nanothermite data in Fig. 29 on
page 25. The results are presented in Fig. 30 on page 27 in the form of
bar graphs reporting units of kJ/g.
There is an oddity I want to point out before I get into the first weakness.
The data referred to on page 19 and in Fig. 19 appears to have not
included sample 2 Delassio/Breidenbach, but instead has a MacKinlay 2
sample in its place to give a total of 4 samples tested. In Fig. 30 the 4
samples are clearly labeled as 1, 2, 3, and 4, so here it seems to
imply that the 2 Delassio/Breidenbach sample is included. Interestingly,
the numerical value of 3 kJ/g given in the text on page 19 for the
MacKinlay 2 sample of Fig. 19 is the same or at least close to the same
as the 2 (presumably) Delassio/Breidenbach sample of Fig. 30.
Clarification from the authors should be sought to clear up this
confusion.
So there were 4 separate dust samples, with multiple red/gray chips in each sample.
I will use the numerical values of energy release given in the text
(page 19) as representing the values in the bar graph of Fig. 30 for the
4 WTC chip samples. These would be
Sample 1: 1.5 kJ/g
Sample 2: 3 kJ/g
Sample 3: 7.5 kJ/g
Sample 4: 6 kJ/g
As these four DSC data points are all we have, it is of note that
there is tremendous scatter in this data. The average value is 4.5 and
the standard deviation is 2.7. As two standard deviations is usually
what is used when referring to a value being +/- some uncertainty, in
rough terms, we would then say that the DSC data gives an average value
of 4.5 kJ/g, with an uncertainty of +/- 100%.
It appears that only one red/gray chip was selected from each sample
for DSC testing. If DSC tests had been done separately for multiple
chips in each sample, then the question of whether the scatter in the
data was present similarly within each of the samples could also have
been addressed. You cannot find what you do not look for.
The paper offers some possible explanations for the scatter in the data. From page 19, section 3, it states,
“Variations in peak height as well as yield estimates are not
surprising, since the mass used to determine the scale of the signal,
shown in the DSC traces, included the mass of the gray layer. The gray
layer was found to consist mostly of iron oxide so that it probably does
not contribute to the exotherm, and yet this layer varies greatly in
mass from chip to chip.”
Page 29, Conclusion 10. offers an explanation for higher total energy
release than can be explained by the classic thermite reaction (true
for samples 3 & 4)
“The carbon content of the red material indicates that an organic
substance is present. This would be expected for super-thermite
formulations in order to produce high gas pressures upon ignition and
thus make them explosive. The nature of the organic material in these
chips merits further exploration. We note that it is likely also an
energetic material, in that the total energy release sometimes observed
in DSC tests exceeds the theoretical maximum energy of the classic
thermite reaction.”
If citing gray layer variation and organic content is not enough to
explain the tremendous variation in the results, another explanation is
added on page 27, section 6. I will quote an entire paragraph so you can
appreciate the context.
“It is striking that some of the red/gray chips release more energy
in kJ/g than does ordinary thermite, as shown in the blue bar graphs
above. The theoretical maximum for thermite is 3.9 kJ/g [27]. We suggest
that the organic material in evidence in the red/gray chips is also
highly energetic, most likely producing gas to provide explosive
pressure. Again, conventional thermite is regarded as an incendiary
whereas super-thermite, which may include organic ingredients for rapid
gas generation, is considered a pyrotechnic or explosive [6, 24]. As
this test was done in air it is possible that some of the enhancement of
energy output may have come from air oxidation of the organic
component.”
So the DSC tests were done in air so extra oxygen was present to help liberate energy from any organics that might be present.
I know there is very little data to go on, just 4 DSC scans of
red/gray chips, but with the scatter in the data and the explanations
offered to explain it, I get the impression that the red/gray chips are
tremendously lacking in uniformity. Or else there is much inherent error
in the experimental apparatus.
By having air and therefore a source of oxygen present in the DSC
seems to be an error in method since it allows for the input of energy
from outside the substance that is itself being measured for its energy
content. From Fig. 30 Chip 3 liberates considerably more energy than the
high explosive HMX, and Chip 4 also exceeds the HMX value, but only by a
little. The HMX provides its own oxygen within its chemical makeup, so
it would not depend upon additional oxygen present to liberate its full
energy. (Be sure not to confuse energy release with detonation velocity,
an issue I am not dealing with in this write-up.)
I would like to see what a DSC trace of pure HMX would look like. It
would probably look quite different because it would start to release
its energy at a lower temperature, the deflagration temperature of HMX
being 287 deg C. (page 238, “Explosives,” 6th edition, Meyer et al.,
2007)
In summary, the DSC data is extremely limited with much scatter and
has a potential method error. Drawing firm conclusions from it is
extremely dubious.

QUANTIFYING EXPLANATIONS FOR SCATTER IN DSC DATA
Variability in proportions of gray layer within the red/gray chips
and organics present in the red layer are cited as explanations for the
scatter in the DSC data. Let’s quantify these explanations to see what
kind of variability of the specimens might account for the scatter in
the data.
The energy release for thermite is cited as 3.9 kJ/g. For the lowest
value from the DSC tests, 1.5 kJ/g for sample 1, let’s first assume for
the sake of illustration that this specimen had a low value because it
had no organics in the red layer (in other words it is essentially pure
thermite), and the gray layer being predominantly iron oxide as the
paper says, acted as excess reactant and therefore was essentially inert
providing no energy in the DSC test. In this case, the red layer would
have to be present at 38 % by weight and the gray layer present at 62 %
within the specimen. The math is 1.5/3.9 = 0.38. In summary, this would
be assuming no organics, 38% red layer, and 62% gray layer.
The above calculation is done as a base case for comparison, even
though its assumption of no organics in the red layer goes against the
major thrust of the conclusion of the Harrit et al. paper that the red
layer is a form of nanothermite that includes organics.
The next calculation is an attempt to quantify the high end of the
DSC data, 7.5 kJ/g for sample 3. The presence of organics is cited as
the explanation for the high value by the paper. Pure high explosive HMX
has a energy release of 5.2 kJ/g, so even if sample 3 were 100 % HMX,
this could not account for the higher value of 7.5 kJ/g obtained by the
DSC test. So, for the sake of illustration, I am going to assume that
the organic present in the red layer has an energy release of twice that
of HMX, or 10.4 kJ/g. To help account for the high value of 7.5 kJ/g
for sample 3, I am also going to assume that it contains no gray layer.
In other words I am going to assume that sample 3 is 100 % red layer
material. Setting x = weight fraction thermite in the red layer, the
math is 3.9x + 10.4(1-x) = 7.5. Solving for x gives 0.45. So based on
the above assumptions the red layer would have to contain 45 % thermite
by weight and 55 % organic. In summary, this would be 100% red layer, no
gray layer, with the red layer made up of 45% thermitic material and
55% organics.
Let’s now go back to the low value case, 1.5 kJ/g for sample 1, and
assume that it is made up of red layer (containing 45 % thermite and 55 %
organic from the previous calculation) plus gray layer of inert excess
iron oxide reactant. In this case then, the specimen would have to
contain 20 % red layer and 80 % gray layer. The math is 1.5/7.5 = 0.2.
In summary, this would be 20% red layer (made up of 45% thermite and 55%
organic) and 80% gray layer.
Therefore, a very high degree of variability among the red/gray chips
is necessary to explain the scatter in the DSC test data, unless there
is significant error in the experimental apparatus and technique.
This is in contrast to these statements from the paper concerning the great uniformity of results.
From page 15, right column, it states, “From these data, it is
determined that the red/gray chips from different WTC dust samples are
extremely similar in their chemical and structural makeup. It is also
shown that within the red layer there is an intimate mixing of the
Fe-rich grains and Al/Si plate-like particles and that these particles
are embedded in a carbon-rich matrix.”
From page 23, upper left column, it states, “The results clearly show
the similarities of the red/gray chips from the different dust samples
from all four sites.”

ANOTHER WEAKNESS IN THE DSC DATA
On page 25 of the paper, it says
“The red layer of the red/gray chips is most interesting in that it
contains aluminum, iron and oxygen components which are intimately mixed
at a scale of approximately 100 nanometers (nm) or less. Now we compare
a DSC trace obtained for a WTC red/gray chip with a DSC trace obtained
for known super-thermite (see Fig. (29)).”
Note that in Fig. 29 the trace of the WTC sample is really not all
that similar to the known super-thermite. The WTC sample cited in Fig.
29 is the MacKinlay sample, although it does not say whether it is the
MacKinlay 1 or MacKinlay 2 sample. But from Fig. 19, where 4 WTC DSC
traces are plotted, for the four samples, MacKinlay 1, MacKinlay 2,
Intermont, and White, the two MacKinlay samples are the lowest energy
release traces. The other two, Intermont (sample 3), and White (sample
4) have much higher energy release, and deviate even more from the known
super-thermite trace of Fig. 29.

STATISTICAL WEAKNESS OF THE DATA PRESENTED IN THE PAPER
With the tremendous scatter in the DSC data presented in the paper,
and its implication for extreme non uniformity of the red/gray chips
that I have tried to quantify, the question needs to be raised on all of
the other tests that were performed to characterize the red/gray chips,
and whether additional tests should have been done on other of the
chips within the samples, to see if those tests also would have shown
such high levels of non uniformity.

OTHER QUOTES OF NOTE FROM THE PAPER
From page 25 of the paper, right column, first paragraph, the final sentence is
“We make no attempt to specify the particular form of nano-thermite
present until more is learned about the red material and especially
about the nature of the organic material it contains.” This statement
expresses a lot of doubt about the findings.
From page 29 of the paper, final paragraph.
“Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the
red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted
thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly
energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.” This final conclusion
statement of the paper expresses much less doubt.
The Harrit et al. paper cited in this article can be found here:
“Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe”

Subscribe To

Followers

Fair Use Notice

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to civil rights, religious tolerance, economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science & technology, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.